tv Capital News Today CSPAN March 26, 2013 11:00pm-2:00am EDT
it's an enormous pleasure to be here in the far off days when i was an honest man, i got a ph.d. in history, and it was kind of wonderful to listen to historians again and hear what only historians can do. it's just take a text like the print and begin to understand all the human conditions, historical conditions for which it became possible. i will -- i hope, having heard
from both of you such a fine description first of the renaissance context and the since his after life, you have given me a place to talk about the role of mac machiavellian. what is it about a book written in 1513 that seems so stingingly relevant when you throw your hat to the political ring? what is it about this book more than almost any other book that we teach that seems to give a politician lessons he can't afford not to listen to? i'm going to surprise you by not talking about exactly the famous chapters about desemibelying,
appearing, lying, all the standard areas which machiavellian appears to have such shocking relevance to contemporary politics. i'm going talk about one word in machiavellian and that's fortuna. i have to say when i was in politics, it was the first time i understood exactly what he meant by that. for me it's fortune, chance, contingency, luck, fate, and until you actually have been an politics you don't know what the words mean. and that, i think, will be my theme, which is that one of the
things that makes machiavellian enduringly relevant is the unique grasp of time as a factor in politics. and that's really what i want to talk about. one of the places, one of the most famous remarks about time in politics. it's one of my favorite stories. they asked harold mcmillan who was the british prime minister who was the toughest thing about being a prime minister? and harrold mcmillan looked at the questioner for awhile and said events, my boy, events. it's a deeply wise event. one that machiavellian would have understood immediately. time is the median in which
politicians. the unique and specific gene yous of a great politician is a since of when the time is right and when the time is not right. when an idea time has come and when an idea's time has gone, and of all the theories of politics, i think machiavellian is the way that understands that most deeply. and this deep understanding of time comes through famously in chapter 25, you took us through 17,' 18,' 19, '20. i thought the professor was going do chapter 25 and i'd have nothing to say. in chapter 25, there's a wonderful long passage about for
tuna. i compare her to one of those rivers that when they get angry, break that arebacks, -- banks, strip the soil from one place and depositive it it somewhere else. everyone flees before them. everyone fbis away in the face of the onrush. nobody can resist them at any point. although they are so powerful, this does not mean men when the water recede cannot make repairs and build banks and barriers. so you have this famous image of the breaking its banks, the fortune breaks is like a violent river. an act of nature. men plan, men dispose, men and women build their habitation and
fortune breaks through and breaks apart the preventive structure, the institutions that men create to master time. but notice the two images that work here. first of all fortuna is recurrent. it's unavoidable, and unpredictable like hurricane sandy. one of the ways of understanding the time is for tuna is not prodense. there's no guiding destiny here, fortuna is as unpredictable as a natural disaster it's not guided by a benevolent hand. one of the reasons machiavellian is modern is the stuff happens.
unpredictable, violent change occurs. that's the world we're in. the minute you read machiavellian you're in our world, the world of the unpredictable. the unforeseeable, the violent, the unforseen. and that seems to me a tremendously powerful and modern aspect of machiavellian. equally at the same time as the qaation shows men are not prisoners of fortune. the whole burden of chapter 25 is to say, yes, stuff happens. the unpredictable occurs. catastrophe occur, the around overflows, men are not prisoners of this. they need not be resigned to their fate. it's a very strong emphasis, i think, professor muir made the point about the tremendous point of will in machiavellian.
will against fortune. will against fate, will against chance, will against contingency. these are strong and powerful themes in machiavellian. for tuna does not preach resignation. there's not a line of resignation in machiavellian's writing. politicians, in other words, were people in charge of public affairs in florence cannot predict the unpredictable. they can't be sure when the river is going to overflow. they can put up dikes, damns with and -- dams and persuade them to do what they can to mitigate the impact of fortune. the impact of fate. they can't prevent the worse, they can channel the flood downstream. mitigate harms. and seek to control fortune to
the degree they can. the chapter ends with the passage about fortune being a woman. it's a violent passage. it's an unattractive passage. other passages in machiavellian make it clear he had formable respect as it happens for women as political actors, but the metaphor is there to say will, human will, in this case, masculine will can control the unpredictable, can react to fate, do not have to submit to fate and contingency and chance with pious resignation. and so that's a tremendously important element of his vision of what political life is about. political life is reacting to chance, to contingency, to fate,
he lived it as our wonderful avocation of the context makes clear. he's in power from what is it 1498 to 1512, suddenly he's in jail, he's being hung up and tortured and writing merely a year later after he's had what for any human being is the most shocking experience contingency and misfortune. but he builds it in to the sense of politics, one minute you're up, one minute you're down. one minute fortune is shining on you and one minute you're in a jail cell begging for your life. it's in a sense what political life is like. the radical meaningless, even encounter with for for tuna. what i find is inspiring in a
way about machiavellian is that he -- the famous letter. it's not a lament at the misfortune, it's not a repining at fate, it's not a metaphysical incure i are to the mystery of time. he simply says that's life. that's how we live, that's where we are. and that, again, it seems to me is a profoundly modern view. i think crucially a nontragic vision of time. and a nontragic vision of political action. you get a much sharper vision of the tragedy of political action and favors politic's vocation. machiavellian is a scathing portrait of human folly but
equally it's a very, very deep portrait of human stubbornness, persistence, willingness to get back up on your feet after you have been dumped in the mud by the fate, by the fate and by fortune. it's a nontragic vision of time in which men are rarely the equal of their times. but some men can be found to be the measure of their times. most men aren't, but some men step up. that's, i think, his deep sense of why human life is not tragic. some fools will fail but other men will be found equal to their moment. he says at one point since fortune changes and men stubbornly continue to behave in the same way, men flourish when
the behavior suits the time and fail when they are out of step. this -- what professor muir was calling his ruthless pragmatism. i think is a core of his attitude toward politics. the sense that success and failure in politics depends on having some mysterious alignment between your will and intelligence and the times you live in. but you don't get to choose machiavellian's saying. you don't get to choose and you must never assume you can shake your times more than you think you can. deeply realistic, not even pessimistic this is where you are. don't get idea above your station. don't think you can master your times. when you think you have mastered your times, someone will throw you in jail or you'll lose an
election or whatever it is. so these are elements in which i'm still enough of a historian to say this isn't machiavellian's ma dearnty. he was writing when i read having been through the experience of politics, i see a deep resonance to aspect of politics which are infuriating and difficult when you do them. you're not the master of fortune. if you think you are, you will fail. lucking with being alive with your times is a great crucial element of political success and failure. and needless to say, every political rascal who ever lived will blame his times and his lack of luck for his own immorality or lack of courage.
machiavellian is deeply aware of that particular ruse and exercise of excopassion and god know as a a politician, i have done a bit of that. you can't hide from niccolo. that's the great thing about that book. you cannot hide from this cynical, it is cynical, deeply realistic sense of what human beings are like and what political action is like. let me move toward a conclusion. other things that i pick up from machiavellian that connect to this sense of fortuna. deep sense throughout the book that politics is local. yes, it is true, he's writing in dialogue with living. in dialogue with the ancients, he has a strong desire to produce some propositional meanings about politics that will endure, but if you look at
the text of the print, it's constantly, you know, this is what they got wrong. this is what boarsha got wrong. he could be talking about the senate of the united states. it's all local worked in wyoming, it will not work in oklahoma, it worked in seattle, it was terrible in florence. that incredibly dense sense of context is an important lesson in itself how to understand politics. machiavellian is saying don't over theorize here. all politics is local. the traditions, the meanings that drive and move political action are contextual to cities, contextual to sienna, contention yule -- con text yule to roam. another thing is the character. outcome that depend tremendously on what kind of person say czar is. what kind of person he was.
what kind of person the fryer was. that -- deep sense of the driving factor of character is important. and paula, as i said earlier is timing. the sense in machiavellian that you get everywhere that ideas are interesting, yeah. but a politician has nothing to do with idea. it has to decide whether an idea has come or whether an idea has goarn. whether the moment is right. the sense of the moment, the sense of the decisive moment. why machiavellian is so inextinguishable as a source of political inspiration is the contextual -- seizing the mom within losing the moment. being fortune's friend or being on the wrong side of fortune. finally, a final point in our
moment of in which is conventional in american politics and canadian politics to lament conflict, to lament partisanship,. machiavellian said calm down, boys and girls. what do you think this stuff is? this is war by other means. stop fooling yourself. con tect is into theble -- in relation to republican virtue, one of the most surprising and important message you get from the discourses is that one of the things that keeps republicans free is a conflict between the elite and nobility and the citizens. it's that conflict that is the source of our freedom. one of the things that come so strongly is fight for your
freedom. republicans can lose it, republic can gain it. the conflict at the heart between the privileged elite and the citizens i are is the driver of republican freedom and the minute you lose the desire to fight for the freedom, you lose it. that, it seems to me, that vision, in other words that politics is local, it's the politics of the city. it's the politics of personality, the genius in politics have the mysterious gift of knowing where fortune is going. and that gift is always that's another key point in machiavellian that gift of knowing where fortune is going is temporary. you have it and lose it. there's no such thing as permanence genius in politics. what will work in one situation will not work another. normatively is integral to the preservation of freedom.
these are aspect of his message that seem to me, to be of extraordinarily powerful influence certainly on us all and our vision of politics. thanks so much. [applause] thank you. we have time for questions. you should hold your question until you are holding the microphone. so yes, question right here. hi, the question is for the second speaker. i really appreciate your emphasis on fortuna. i think it's an integrate part of the work -- [inaudible] i think the talk you have given doesn't express the central concern machiavellian has with fortune. specifically that fortune is a problem not because of the event politically that causes -- [inaudible] seems through prudence with
prudence and arms question actually stem the tide of those political events. the problems seems to be debt fortune terms of death and illness we. cannot prevent when it is we going to die. given that we can't prevent those things, i think perhaps we're a little bit misguided in saying that machiavellian's picture of politics is one where we might have some hope. [inaudible] there's no way we can overcome them. the political regime no matter how well thought out they are are ultimately going to die as well. what do you think we can do with our understanding of fortune with events? do you think there's something we cok do with the picture of death based upon the talk of events?
>> it's very powerful to put the presence on death. it's present in machiavellian. i think you should ask yourself why bother to write the "the prince" and the discourses if you believe that he believes. i think he wrote the books because he believed that prudence armed certain kinds of knowledge might be able, in certain cases to forestall what do you rightly describe as something he was worried about the inevitable decline and corporation -- corruption. i didn't talk about corruption. the key element of machiavellian's sense of time, his sense of inevidentble crurption -- corruption of virtue. it it's an old theme. sense that all republicans are threatened with corruption. i come away with a -- i guess a more optimistic reading of
machiavellian, god knows it's difficult to find consolation in the icy pages, but a sense that passage from chapter 25 you can't stop the river overflowing but you can dam the banks. that, i think, is crucial to his sense of being able to resist corruption, resist decline, emphasis you use the right word prudence, the use prudence, he writes these books because he wants to strengthen the arms of prudence. i don't know whether . >> i think that's right. i mean, the person who dice is -- [inaudible] that's the classic example. he does everything right. had follows the rules and he dies. he lose in that sense. but i think michael is right. you don't write a book that has no utility. that has no use for you or
others. i think he's thinking about a practical set of things you do short of that. before we die, let's see what we can do. i had a question -- it struck me as the most wildly utopian chapter in the entire book. it's possible do great deeds that all the people i have been praising in the book, moses, they are just men just like you. you can do what they do. and the fact they face really hard, horrible difficult situations, that lets you display and the one word we haven't talked about -- you cannot perform the virtual owe sew act.
maybe we can talk about what it means for him. it seems like it's crucial to what is going on in the book. >> well, the chapter 26, the chapter you're talking about was probably tacted on later -- tacked on later. it would have ended as fortune as a woman passage. it was originally dedicated to julian who dies. bad fortune for him. change the dedication to his other prince lorenzo, apparently at that time he adds the chapter and calls on lorenzo to drive out the bar bar began. it's basically a call to arms. to liberate italy from foreign domination. and it has a kind of, yeah, optimism about it. the opposite, obviously, throughout the print, the force that you have to deal with fortune is virtue.
fortune is a god ease, so by -- and also gendered fortuna. she's a woman. she's a goddess and the opposite is the prince that machiavellian's, i think understands as not in the christian sense but the attribute of a roman warrior. that certainly fits with the passage we've been talking about in the other chapter 25 about the audacious young man. the capacity to act boldly, courageously, and with some degree of foresight, to a degree which you can't it's the on thing you have got to deal with the capricious fortune.
it permeates the text. everything is about twos. these are the two mechanisms of history. >> another question? yes. i have a question for professor muir. what t means when machiavellian advises the prince to consult evaluate the appearance of mercy. i think it's in keeping your the sis. it seems to me, this is really a question that when a political figure cultivates appearance they have a kind of reality it can simply be words, i suppose. what would it be to appear to be merciful except in some public way to be merciful? at least in some particular acts? >> i'm not sure if i formulate
my question quite sharply enough. i was wondering what you take that notion of the political leader of appearing. does it also not imply a political reality? >> it's a way of creating a realty, i think. the way i would think about it, and the way i teach it is to compare the prince on this set of passages with the the contemporary text which deal with how they should behave in which there is articulated codes of behavior. the core of which is this words they mowings word -- famous word that he coins. this is interesting. in order to be effective person
in public you have to behavior in a certain way. according to the accepted social norm of the community. it is your face, in it would be looking behind your face so that would be intraspective. it's not being introspective. in other words to go back to machiavellian's passage i read you, most people see with their eyes and feel with their hands. you don't look behind your own mask to the point it becomes who you are. you -- in fact we think about social behavior for a few minutes. we all know that from childhood on we're trained not express our emotions fully and directly all the time otherwise society would be in chaos. you have to maintain a certain kind of demeanor in order to be
the prince. i think that's what is going on. by the late 16th century, this phenomena becomes so wide spread there's treat sei treaty a lovely ox more on on dissimulation. how can you appear to be honestly appear to be something you're not? that's exactly what is going on here. [inaudible] you mentioned in a phrase -- [inaudible] he praised moe sis for being a founder. i'm confused that moses of all the founder looks up quite literally had the wrath of god by his side and if left to his
own devices would have been a shepard. i don't know if you can expand on that. -- it's a good question. i wondered if the point was barbed which is to say we would have the reaction when we think about moses. you describe this as a man of god. machiavellian singles him out to be a self-made man. it could be a little way of saying it has nothing do with higher powers. this is resolutely secular. it's part of the separation of the world of politics and humans from the define world. you had the right response. i think that's what he wants us to say. >> i would add the other thing about moe sis. he was quoted in mack machiavellian a lot. moses is all over the place, and he's quoted in the context usually, most commonly in the context as a law giver.
so these along with -- [inaudible] and machiavellian is interested in origin. beginnings of law that's where he most often appears. in the book by -- reading the bible is interesting book. he's more student of the bible than we would think from the passage and print. >> what else? we have time for another question? >> i guess working off that passage that always has been intreeg intriguing to me is the discussion of weapon i are and brings up david and lending of the armor to david and david struts around in the armor and it's just not the right fit. perhaps it's not the right per sewn that he should have.
[inaudible] maybe connecting two questions you talk about professor muir the idea of creating a per son that but not -- but is there also a sense of self-facing too? creating your own per son that but subtle about it as well? well, i mean, you know, the first goal is to do it in such a way that it doesn't appear like you're doing it. that's what it means. literally. doing something which is consult nailt -- cultivated and unnatural and appearing it natural. that's the spectrum as you're suggesting here. what i'm suggesting is really do
it well. you lose a sense of your performing. for those in a certain age will remember the advertisement about michael jordan "be like mike." of course, when michael jordan made a jump shot, you know, it seemed miraculous. it seemed like he was utterly unexpoliceble. he must have spent years practicing shooting those. that's a point. like playing the pie owe know, you can't think about it. there's no recognition this is a performance. it's just the body remember it is and does it. and i think that's what is being talked about. is the goal here.
you have to be cape lble of turning it off also. as necessary you need to flip it off. >> that would require some knowledge you're doing it. >> yes, that's right. [laughter] -- [inaudible] i guess the point that power and authority are two separate concepts really intrigued me. when you consider how wall street has been able to kind of create a power base without any actual political authority. i was wondering what you think machiavellian's judgment would be of these men who have been able to impasse such power despite the fact that in their amassing it seems to -- thus giving them the power?
[laughter] >> this just got handed to me. [laughter] i recall something i said at the end of my talk, which was one of the startling aspects of machiavellian's political sociology of republicans is awareness that inequality of wealth are a source of corruption and a threat to the survival of republicans. that rich e -- elite are habitually sub subversive of democratic liberty. he has startling disabused or disenchanted view of wealth and
magnificence so that in the sociology of welfare no authority that comes with wealth by itself. it another form of power. that's a different view of wealth that you get in other sociology of wealth and power in the same period. i think that's what i would say. i would not venture to wall street, i think what you can take from machiavellian is he isn't impressed. you know, that's important. he's not impressed by people who go to work in a helicopter or get eight figure at the end of salary. he see it is very coldly as a form of power. power separated for any kind of
authority. the authority that i think the strong point of what professor muir was saying. machiavellian thinks normative proposition. the power comes from the people. that's what -- he thinks that's where -- excuse me -- that's where he thinks authority comes from to the degree there's authority in machiavellian's world. his vision of the republican. the authority is not with the money. it's with the people. and as i said, what is very striking in his vision of politics is being in liberty driven by social conflict. economic conflict. constant conflict. and when the people stop fighting, and opposing the power of the -- merely rich the republican is threatened. and that part of what
machiavellian's said was a very strong influence on the american republican and tradition right through madison, the federalist, and all of this stuff. they know what he's talking about. jefferson knew what he was talking about. let me invite you to join us for a reception immediately following us. and join me in thanking our impieses tonight -- thanks our guests tonight. thank you. [applause] the supreme court heard arguments tuesday in a case regarding the constitutionality of california's same-sex marriage wan. one of the attorneys arguing in support of the proposition 8 pan was charles cooper. he spoke with reporters outside the court.
>> my name is charles cooper, i represent the petitioners in this case, the party and their lawyers have now litigated this case for almost four years. [cheering and applause] and finally to this point, the case issue of saying was presented to the court. the court asked penetrated, measured questions of both sides, and now it's in the hands of the court. we're looking forward to hopefully a prompt response, as i said this difficult and controversial issue. [cheering and applause] thank you. >> [inaudible] [cheering and applause] there's? 0 way to sum up my argument in a couple of sentences. we believe that proposition 8 is constitutional and the place for the decision to be made regarding redefining marriage is with the people.
not with the court. >> what do you make of the questioning? >> thank you very much. thank you. good afternoon. andrew pugno. i'm a general counsel for the protect marriage coalition and the official proponent. today we feel that we clearly presented the winning case for marriage. we think that our lead counsel charles cooper ask an outstanding job delivering the arguments with great clarity and we think the hearing went very well. we would like to -- pass proposition 8 and stuck with us through this long, lengthy legal battle of nearly four years and we look forward to a positive court that uphold the will of the people. >> can you address some of the question early questions?
-- [inaudible] [inaudible] -- we're going to stand on all the arguments we made in court today. we're not going reargue the case on the sidewalk. we think we were to be say everything we wanted to say in this hearing, we thought the questions from the court were very probing, but very good questions. very thoughtful questions for both sides, and i think that we'll see very recent decision come out of the court. the reaction to the question inside there dpowrt seems to be -- national -- [inaudible] issue of sweeping role. what does it tell you in terms how it will play out? what do you think may come out of this? >> well, without predicting a result -- a sweeping role. i think there are multiple
options the court is exploring. we're going have to see which direction the court goes. i think different views were presented by the proponent of prop eight, the challengers of proposition 8, and the solicitor general's office. [inaudible] the california supreme court already said that the marriage is created for the brief time it was legal in california, remained recognized. [inaudible] >> and the whole bailgt starts all other again, doesn't it? >> our position all along has been the political process that means state by state states deciding for themselves that's the forum where this debate belongs. and this is not something that should be imposed by the judiciary by the court.
and so a victory here for us means that the issue returns to the people in their legislateddive and elected representative where the debate belongs. [inaudible] one of the issue is the integrity of state right but in california particularly the integrity of the initiative process. it can be vetoed by the government official. the initiative designed to circumvent. that would be perhaps a fatal blow to the initiative process. thank you. >> i think we're done. >> yeah. sir? >> yes. -- [inaudible] i'm sorry i'm not going to be able to make a prediction on
that. thank you for your questions. hello, nice to see you. >> can you talk about when sonya sotomayor over and over again was asking about the harm done by allowing same-sex couples to marry. it didn't seem to be -- [inaudible] briefly i'm going to make a small exception talking about the merit. i think both sides have agreed in this case it's impossible to know any certainty. the changes that would be on society by redefining a fundamental institution like marriage. i think it's something that both sides agree on. so thank you very much for your questioning. [inaudible conversations]
>> mr. chairman, as i listen to those comments, it struck me what a wonderful thing free speech is. >> that was the hearing where donald rumsfeld was making the justifications for attacking iraq and what you didn't hear or questions and we got a chance to ask him which is how much money is halliburton going to make and how many u.s. soldiers will be killed in the war, how many iraqi civilians will die from this adventure and i would like
the questions answered by somebody like donald rumsfeld. homeland security secretary janet napolitano says the notion that a pathway to citizenship for an illegal immigrant should be withheld until certain border security is not necessary. the so-called border security trigger has been part of the immigration debate on capitol hill. speaking with christian science monitor reporters, she also talked about a building a cybersecurity work force and counterterrorism operations. this is an hour. >> okay, folks. give you a little time to eat -- >> thanks for coming everyone. i am david cook from the monitor.
our guest is secretary janet napolitano. this is her sixth visit and we welcome her back. our guest is a new york city native who grew up in albuquerque after graduating from santa clara university and the university of virginia law school she moved to phoenix in 1983 for the circuit court of appeals judge. later the guest practiced corporate law. in 1993, secretary napolitano was named u.s. attorney for arizona, a post she held until being elected as the arizona state attorney general in 1998. in 2002, she was elected as arizonan's governor and their reelection in 2006. in her off-duty hours, press reports are correct, she has hiked the himalayas, climbed mount kilimanjaro and for this week is a major basketball fan. now i want to monday in the mechanical matters. as always we are on the record. please, no law -- live blogging
or tweeting. there is no embargo except c-span agreed not to use video of the session for at least one hour after it in this to give others in the room a chance to file. in the interest of preserving the reputation for civility such as this if you would like to ask a question please do the traditional thing and send me a subtle nonthreatening signal and i will call. we will start by offering our guest the opportunity to make some opening, and then move to questions are not the table. with that, madam secretary, it's all yours. >> it's good to be back. i think i've been here in different roles as i had different jobs over time, but it's always good to be backed back. we are celebrating the tenth anniversary of the department of homeland security, which is really infancy when you talk about institution building at the governmental level. it's the largest organization of
the federal government since the creation of the defense department. and as you know, it was, out of the separate agencies for all kind of legacy departments as well as new things like federalizing the airport screening work force. i think of the time immediately post 9/11 as the dhs 1.0. it was finally recognizing the threats that were out in the world in a concrete way it was taking the initial steps to organize the department. that is hard work to bring that many people in the agencies together under one roof. and michael chertoff continuance that tradition during his time as secretary. i think the last four years as dhs 2.0 where we were building on the foundation that they had
laid where we were getting a better and a more mature sense of risk of what our value added is of things like the intelligence community and really began building a work force to sustain the department over time. as we head into president obama's second term i think we are moving to the dhs three-point no. we want to be agile and flexible because the threats are evolving so quickly. we want to make sure that we are taking care of the fundamentals particularly in areas like counterterrorism even as we expand to address new and rapidly growing threats such as death threats to our cyber networks. so a lot is going on in the department in this regard. if i might i will mention a few
particular issues. one is cyber. we did a work force analysis last year brought in on a voluntary basis i might say a lot of experts in the private sector among other places to look at what cyber skills we need in our department, what is missing, what are the gaps where we need to go. the president's budget has consistently put more money into cyber and the budget that was adopted last week also does the same thing and has an anomaly. i spent a lot of my time looking through the air arrangements what are our relations in the private sector, how do we organize ourselves in the fbi where it is concerned who is doing what so lot of time being spent organizing ourselves even
as we work with the congress on revisiting cybersecurity legislation to the estimate of the international herald tribune this morning says you are trying to hire 600 hackers is that true? >> hackers for good. we have identified that our immediate needs are 600 more than we currently have and we are in that process now. second, immigration and all of the intended issues as you will know, one of the major changes we made during the dhs 2.0 was to prioritize the immigration enforcement to focus on those that it violated the criminal law in addition to the repeat violators and we caught right at the interior of the country. as we move to the high priorities we also start looking at things that are low priority,
and that led to a memo that i sent to the director of i.c.e. and the director last summer in june and the deferring action of young people who would come through the process and go through a background check and the like. we call that the deferred action for the program. it has some resemblance which failed in other ways it is not similar it doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. why? because it can't. but for the action we have had over 400,000 young people now apply, and i want to say over 220,000 -- am i right about this, what is the number that has been granted? it is over 200,000 in the entire process. we are working and being very supportive of immigration
support in providing technical assistance to the so-called gang of eight, and we continue to work to emphasize our motion with respect to border security. the third area that is a big change for us with a big shift bomb is to move in the travel and trade space into the risk-based approach where we don't treat every threat equally for every passenger but based on what we know or don't know about traveler's rican identify. we can expedite through the lions versus those that we don't know much about but we need to be spending our time on. so you will see that we have expanded global entry. if you don't have your global entry card for those of you that have it is for those that travel and internationally, and if you
arrive at jfk and you see people scooting through the line that's because they have their global entry. and then we have a domestic version called tsa preach check which has been growing very rapidly. our hope is that by the end of this year, one hour for travelers will be in some sort of an expedited traveler program, which allows us to, again, focus on those we don't know much about and hopefully take some pressure off at the airport. we have done the same with cargo international lead is a much more difficult environment, but we have dual mission is to keep dangerous people and cargo out of the united states and also to facilitate the legitimate trouble that has to occur in any kind of a vibrant economy some of into risk-based isn't a cookie cutter approach. it is a major change in it is
the right thing to do. finally, i can close my remarks without mentioning budget and sequestration. it's difficult to manage a large department such as ours when you never quite know if you are going to have a budget, what's in it and whether you are going to get more or less and so forth. we welcome the action last week when the dhs finally got a 2013 budget and the congress did put money back for the customs and the border protection as well as cyber we are still in the process of on packing what they actually did because you have to actually reach down into each account to see whether the money is and so i cannot tell you today exactly what impact will work for those even as we acknowledge the sequestration
does have real impact does evolves over time but we will work our way through it in a very positive fashion where we continue to work on things like agility and flexibility and where we move to a smarter more effective way to enact or pursue the security of the united states. that is mauney report to the committee. >> thank you madam chairman. >> as a softball can you give us a sense of which of the many areas you have to worry about keep you up most of my? >> kunin it's interesting because there is so much that comes across our desk. if you go down to the five major mission areas that we have come
counterterrorism, a year, land and sea border, cybersecurity, disaster preparation response and recovery you could stay up on any one of those. but occasionally keeps me up at night i have to tell you is and what i know about because what i know about we can do something about some operations that i have not seen that hasn't become evidence. some new mechanism or techniques that are being used by cyber factors from around the world, so it is the known and unknown that can cause a restless evening. >> last week one of your officials and the borders and custom said that the department made no progress to report to congress on coming up with a new
measure of security in the nation's border condition index and as you know the legislators who are working on the bipartisan immigration package are interested in such a measure. can you explain why if the report is correct there's been no progress and white is the case? >> the border condition index is a project that we undertook because we saw measuring apprehensions at the border was not in and of itself the total measure of what life was like at the border. we needed to look at things like property values and crime rates and things of that sort for the 7 million or so particularly that live along the u.s. and mexico border. that is a very difficult thing to do in any kind of statistically significant way. but in terms of how we measure border security or what we look for is a combination of the
manpower. so, for example we have coverage over the entire southwest border though the forces are on the ground. the technology part is absolutely critical and we've stationed more border patrol agents down at the border than ever before. the numbers have been driven to 40 year lows if you just look at things like apprehensions so we know we are achieving success but the real measure is qualitative. really when you step back and think about the border, where you want is the ability to spot illegal trafficking particularly in the high traffic areas some parts of the border are not tracked at all and then in the ability to respond to what is
seen. that measure in the plans we are confident the border is as secure as it has ever been but there is no number that captors that -- captures that. if you are just looking for one number, border security encompasses a lot of different things but as we look at managing the border, what we are looking for is the ability to protect illegal persons and contraband coming across the border and then the ability to intercede. >> ted and david. >> i wanted to ask following up on that with a communication has been, what sort of recommendations is given on how to make the border more secure and what sort of things can be
implemented. i know the administration said it's the most secure and how you can have progress and what more can be done to make them believe that. >> with velte speaking specifically to what we have given the gang of 8i don't know exactly what they are looking at but i can tell you what we have given to the congress as general one is the technology plan. one of the decisions i made a year plus adel was called sdi net on the pill were still a go along the border to create virtual. it didn't work. the border parts of our desert mountains and parts of it are right along the rio grande river. it's every kind of terrain that you can imagine. and as a, rather than one approach is a sector by sector
technology plan as to what would be the most useful for the manpower that we have in each sector and those plans have been given to the congress as the have been completed. i think what more can be done is to make sure that those plans are filled out. in other words we make the acquisitions and deploy the technology. but i think in terms of manpower we are really there and what i try to communicate when i talked to members of the congress is if their securities and somehow different from looking at the overall immigration system they go together. so, for example, we know the key driver of illegal immigration as their demand for labor. we need a national e-verify or some such system so that employers have a way to comply
with law but that enables us to than focus on employers. we need a better way to let people come through the ports. it's a real incentive if you are going to be separated from your family for ten years and that happens we too often or if you can't get the right kind of visa for 15 years straightening out the system where legal immigration concerned as part of it. so, when we talk about a border security to take pressure of the border we have to look at the immigration system as a whole. >> [inaudible] -- i was frankly surprised by the congressional reaction. lawmakers are usually telling
them that they are doing too much, and a lot of people cannot and offered in to this change. how do you, just generally how do you balance things regardless whether or not you are scaling back or ramping that security measures. >> if it's not one thing it's another. i think frankly it is the right decision from a security standpoint we are trying to prevent a bomb from getting on a plane and if you are talking of a small knife, there are already things on a plane someone could convert into a small sure project so from a security standpoint it is the right decision. i think where we could have done better quite frankly is a little more legislative and public outreach before we announce the decision to give it a softer landing has it worthwhile.
but i told the director if we are moving to risk-based that means risk-based and sometimes people will be unhappy with those decisions but in the end we preserved, facilitate normal trouble. >> first i think you secretary napolitano for being here today. the release to the detainees and a month ago and it has been a lot of back-and-forth whether these were criminal or noncriminal. what has prevented the dhs from compiling and releasing the statistics to show why people are deported and what level of crime. i know they have broad categories but what has prevented them from releasing the actable offenses that lead to the deportation?
>> i don't know if that has been prevented that you have to understand that this is a different population than prisoners. the average stay is two weeks, so it is a constantly moving body of people. we maintained 34,000 or so in the various detention facilities around the country. i think we have contracts with upwards of 50. as a yes we can compile those statistics but it's not like running a state prison system where it is a fairly stable population and you know when they come in and go out but it does take a bit of work to get all of the members in one place as it were.
>> you said you are holding a couple hundred immigrants for a period long enough to damage their mental health. >> book, i think that solitary confinement should be the exception of the rule. it should be as short a term as possible and monitored very carefully. i've asked i.c.e. to go back and give me information on the specific cases referenced and windows occur whether the fact and then looking at all of the policy with respect to sell the terrie. salles the terrie is used for a variety of reasons. one is for an inmate's own protection. one is for an inmate who for whatever reason is disruptive to the population.
those are two reasons, but it is not something that we should be doing on a routine basis and we need to look at our own policies to make sure we are as tight as we can be. >> is that something that you are going to be able to put into place the next three to five years this plan that has been set out over a long period of time and power important is that system to you feeling like you are able to say the border is secure health center is that in eliminating some of those non-known and unknown? >> if you come into the port, that is pretty solid. x is more difficult because the
ports are designed to police the exits'. going to an average airport you don't find people standing at the line checking your document or fingerprints or anything. and so, it just architecturally the space for doing that is difficult. what we have given to the congress is a two phase approach. one on exit is we now have very robust data bases. it is one of the areas of reform that we've made since the underwear bomber. that enabled us to do what we called enhanced by a graphic as we did on the airlines among other things and we can cancel out that way. we have an arrangement now with canada we just finished the pilot and we are going to move to the implementation where we are going to give them our entry
data from canada which they will count as the exit and vice versa so we just exchange the data. as we deploy the enhanced by a graphic we would like ultimately to be in a total volume natural environment but that is probably going to take some time and dollars and i think from a safety and security standpoint, what we have got and what we are deploying really gets us about 90% there. >> you said he was providing some technical assistance to the immigration. how involved are you want some of those discussions? are you calling senators are meeting with them. >> can you talk a little bit about what you are doing?
>> i think they deserve the space to conduct their discussions with some confidentiality until they are ready to announce whatever agreement they have. i think at some point the process is used and filled out but i prefer not to speak to that right now. >> over the sequester you talked about longline and tsa checkpoints and i just wondering i realize those furloughs there's been anecdotal evidence but what have you seen so far in terms of the essentials delays in traveling? >> if you look at for example miami has an airport, there are three hour lines. what are going to now take the budget we have. part of that was just trying to
manage within a and with the uncertainty of what was going to ultimately be done with the dhs when they look at our budget. now that we have a budget we go ahead and look and we will do everything we can to mitigate lines. unfortunately, i mean one of the things i would like to do is make lines shorter. so, you know, moving to risk based trusted traveler programs, all the rest, do have that effect. but i only have so many port officers, port inspectors come only have so many tsa screeners, so there is no contemplated expansion. so there will be lions. >> -- lines. >> what has changed in what we are seeing on the hill in this
discussion? and second, there are going to be those that will worry about the cost through. what can you say about why vose may be of 2006? >> i think that in terms of scoring, one of the things we've looked at in terms of our own scoring is how much should be fi based. so if there is going to be a program where the 11 million undocumented in the country now can come out of the shadows and register to get their biometrics we've run the background checks and so forth that is a lot of people. but don't need to pay a fee or a find they need to get in the law and they do break the law. so some of this will be based.
we look forward to that having more at the port particularly at the land apart for scarborough and things of that sort. so, you know, again, without speaking to what the gang of eight told you and advising the white house there are ways to deal with that without getting a big number that they would have to score. >> [inaudible] >> i think it's interesting. four years ago when i started let's look together at immigration reform i didn't really get a positive response. there was the war to going on and we were close to a depression. health care was winding its way through the congress. we can't take on another big
issue. i think now is the time and i think that the election had consequences as they look at the changing demographics of the united states and the changing demographics of the voters in the united states, and i think that the lines in the general recognition of what ever saw you are on on the immigration debate the system needs to be revisited just as the current reality. am i optimistic? i am always optimistic and we will do everything we can to support a bipartisan efforts in the congress to get this done. >> my question deals with their work to terrorism suspects. >> can you letcher him in the back? >> -- a couple terrorism suspects picked up in the past couple of weeks. one in italy and another eight
relatives of osama bin laden to the they are trying these individuals and a civilian court what is the potential by not interrogating them trying them in articles records verses trying them in the closed circumstances in guantanamo bay where you can come to this? >> you've referenced others that we have for a variety of techniques excellent ways to get what ever individuals have to share. quite frankly, we have tried a number after a dozen suspects in the courts particularly in the southern district of new york there is an expertise that has been developed. they have actually done more trials and have gotten what i view to be very good results
from a security and a law enforcement perspective and an appreciation for the courts play. so, we have for example a multi department, multi agency, high-value interrogation group that could feed in different types of questions that need to be asked by way of example not speaking to those to but from our standpoint let's say you find someone who has been active in the bomb making field for aviation is concerned we want to make sure what he learned, where he learned it, how she did it, how he would do if and how we would find its. translating that into something a tsa screen at the last point
of departure in the united states would be looking for so we are looking for something that can be translated into actual operational purposes. and i think we have organized ourselves in a way that that can get funneled into the examination. >> were you in miami? florida is hard because it is spring break time and it's tough. >> as you are contemplating a line in front of you if it is post 9/11 we are talking about ten years after iraq is their anything a decade after the dhs in the way of scaling some of
the measures back. >> children under the age of 12 can keep their shoes on. not over 75 but if you are over 75. let me tell you the reality. the reality is the aviation threat has not gone away. when i testified people said what are the threats you are confronting i always identify to the aviation and cyber. that's where we have seen operational activity and where we have seen the pre-operational activity. technology has not yet caught up to where we would like to go. we are working both with our international partners and here we are always looking at the so-called cutting edge technology to ease the process, finding a nonmetallic substances that can be used as an explosive
while you are moving the passengers it is a logistical task so we rely a lot on intel but until the technology catches up to what we need, given the type of the threat that we continue to face, i think our best bet is again encourage more and more travelers to get into these expedited programs, global entry what have you so that we can move them into different lines. >> the background checks could take six months to a year. >> global entry is free popular and for a while people were having to wait 60 to 90 days to get their background check but that has now been reduced substantially. so, i want -- once you have that
global entry, you can get into the paycheck. so, we are in some respects victims of our own success, but we are staffing and doing that work so that we can keep those as short as possible. >> [inaudible] in the past 40 years. as you look at immigration in the home state to what degree do you see the influence of john mccain has arizona would become a blue state in short order, and that dynamic in this whole debate. >> i think senator mccain has called a right. the demographics are changing very rapidly, and he sees it happening every day because he is back-and-forth all the time.
and that does i think have some influence on those who previously have been suspect of getting into the immigration debate. from the perspective i tell you what happened which is to say in the early part, in the early 2000, between closing of san diego and closing of the el paso, so much of the illegal traffic was funneled into arizona said that over half of the apprehensions for the whole country were occurring in the tucson sector. people lost confidence in the rule will fall. it was under any sort of control , and i think that cause from the political pushback and people who -- people are legitimately concerned about what was going on. i was firing off letters to the president and to our delegation
so when i can and i said look we are going to focus on this and we shut that down. and so, we have had i want to say 75 to 90% reduction in apprehensions along the arizona and mexico border. a public perception begins to change back in that more and more people are saying there is security and the rules lot is being appreciated, and now when you live in a border state you recognize you needy and the immigration system that looks because people will go back and forth, families are on both sides of the borders, people live in the united states where you have a good sense of who is
leaving and coming and where they are going and how long they are anticipated to stay and so forth. >> it wasn't competitive and last year it wasn't competitive five years earlier of course so what is the timetable for it to become competitive? >> you know, i don't know. it will happen i think. it is the fact that i could win three straight elections is indicative that the they can and do well in may in arizona. in 2000 for a think it is an anomaly in part because senator mccain said he is running and while i wasn't involved in the campaign it keeps me out in that sort my understanding is the
obama campaign didn't play in arizona. nevada, colorado, new mexico, you know, those three states which have moved. arizona will be behind them, but i think it will be more purple overtime but ultimately bloom. >> since we are on the election oral topic, as you know a colleague of ours from the post said he made it known that you were considering a presidential race. do you want to comment on that? this would be a good format to discuss it. >> you know, i think my plate is so full that contemplation would be the kind of thing that would keep me up at night and i don't get enough. yesterday at a town hall meeting
he was asked if he would move away from using the term illegal immigrant and he said sometimes that phrase is appropriate. i wonder should we always say undocumented? >> i don't get caught up in the vocabulary war. they are immigrants who are here illegally, without documents, that is an undocumented immigrant. the key thing to focus on is how we write the system so that we do not have a perennial large group who has in some respects a defector amnesty because they are here, they are not leaving in the there is no way for them to get right with the law to pay a fine, learn english, make sure they are paying their taxes, etc., so that from every kind of law enforcement and security perspective it is much easier to
bring that out of the shadows than to consistently have them in the shadows. >> we have about 50 minutes left and then to charles, stuart powell to close. brian. >> the senators talked about maybe including a border security trigger that would have to be met before it is triggered before the pathway to citizenship could be open or something along those lines given what you've said about the difficulty creating the metric for evaluating over all border security. how possible do you think a measure like that could be as part of a immigration reform package? >> i think once people look at the whole system and what works relying on one thing the so-called trigger is in the way to go. there needs to be certainty in the bill so that people know
when mcveigh can legalize and when their pathway to citizenship would open up. there's also talk about getting in the back of the line. calculating what the line is at any given time it moves so those judgments will have to be made but i think the key thing is to have border security in the bill to deal with employers and then to have certainty what how you deal with or how the 11 million here who are either illegal or undocumented depending on what your vocabulary is to come out of the shadows. >> they have a bunch of different skill sets. we don't need a ph.d. and a
computer. are there associates agrees the would be helpful to have and the cadre and the answer is yes. we look at different kind of bachelor's degrees. we would be given internships and fellowships' for young people to compete for and to try to introduce them to public service through the kind of interesting work they can do. we just started this year modeled on with the justice department does and then we kind of announced it at the end of the season but even there we had over 3,000 kids compete so we know there is a market and
people are interested in the concept of public service they may not necessarily see that as a government service so you have to make that leap for them. >> they are building up the threat scenario too much but everyone talks about a potential cyber 9/11 it's actually going to far and it's not going to do any good. >> there are different types of cyber evens. there are individual hackers, there are groups that conduct actions on the web, there are some of that can be state sponsored. the u.s. has to be in the position where not everything is
dealt with at the same level because there are different types of attacks and that phonologies and so forth. my focus right now quite frankly -- thank you is getting more caffeine. [laughter] my real focus is on the intersection and the private sector because they control most of the nation's critical infrastructure. the congress rejected in approach. we are working under the president's executive order reaching out to that. we are concerned about some sectors where there's already been a lot of activity financial, but others as well. so, i think for the next nine months to a year the private sector connection into the nsa
to get rid of that who do you call when something is wrong the quicker we get information the quicker we can help. that issue in the private sector is going to be the key in the ability to do things that going back to the question we have to scale. >> the temporary worker program has been one of the touchy areas. how do you create a program like that the network is in but also out into the concerns of people that say we take american jobs? >> again, not speaking on what
is going on in a gain of eight but in any worker program you've got to get the balance right between opening up and selling the markets that need of labor verses the depressing wages. there are a lot of ways you can do that. the department of labor has a huge role to play. they look at what the prevailing rates are and i think the u.s. chamber has a whole string of discussions this winter. so, somewhere in this winter there is an agreement to be reached. >> you said earlier there is an operational activity. can you talk about the volume
that would pose risks whether they are looking for internal or external carry-on of the fluids and how much of a threat this really poses for people. >> depending on what the fluid is, the ball was not a vat is required i think as calculated said that if that were to be used, it would not be a significant enough to blow a hole in the plan. we already checked the check baggage. so, the way to deal with right now is to keep large amounts of my and large. one has been explosive trade detection equipment. it's gotten better and better and canines are very useful.
i remember a member of conagra's saying why don't you use them on all of lanes and do away with all this and i said there are not enough canines in the world to do it. i can talk about almost any topic now because at some point it's crossed my desk. the bill with canines is they can only work for so long so you have to have shifts. while they are useful for the percentage, you cannot use them as you're only tool. the administration for securing
the border? >> i think it's difficult to change public perception to the city you can always go down the border and find someone and india i did states come san. talking about an environment at which you are at zero. we are not saying that there is no. what we are saying, however, is the border is more secure now than it's ever been and it's a continuing. in addition to the technology plans i told you about earlier is to deal with the other parts of the immigration system. anybody that hasn't had one.
the data. i'm hopeful in his administration getting to know my counterpart and will be meeting with him. the permanent opinion is that a safe and secure border is not just a law enforcement necessity, but it's -- you are going to have economic growth in mexico particularly in the united states you have to have control over the security situation. i'm optimistic about the work some of which we will continue from president calderon and some
is absolutely the key. so, we need to have an environment in which the private sector is confident that when they transmit and they will not suffer business competition or other consequences as a result. so working from these issues is going to be. secret service falls under your jurisdiction. do we know why this didn't start in jerusalem. that's one of the reasons why there is planned redundancy in the secret service operations. sometimes things don't like you
have a substitute ready to go. one of the things i found intriguing in the research for this. i think it is better in terms of keeping out information but e-mail just sucks up time and you were all nodding and laughing but you think. i'm constantly getting reports and e-mails through the day that i haven't found it to be a problem, and it allows me -- when i seek information and gets to me, it's not superfluous.
>> [inaudible] >> go ahead. >> i think in many respects in a job like mine and it is inefficient. saxby to >> no, i stopped using the email when i was the attorney general of arizona because i was just getting -- you get hundreds of hundreds of things every time. why am i spending my time scrolling through this and responding to stuff they don't need to. i also like the process someone could send you an e-mail and say if people want to get me the information there are many ways to do so.
>> will you get a female address? >> do you all like getting e-mail? >> i may use it at some point, but right now i have no contemplation of doing that. >> i do not text or twittered. people in my department to, craig fugate does a lot. it's really quite useful. we have our own a website. i stream videos, i get questions and stream videos from employees. there's a lot of ways you can live life without e-mail. everybody makes traces. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. >> thank you all.
free-speech is. >> he was making the justifications for protecting iraq and what you didn't hear in the clip are the questions we got a chance to ask him which is how much money is halliburton going to make, how many soldiers will be killed in this war, how many iraqi civilians will die from this adventure and i would like those questions is answered now by somebody like donald rumsfeld. the feminine mystique was published in 1963. next a forum on the books affect over the past 50 years. from the new america foundation in new york this is one hour. >> well first i want to think the new american foundation for having us. i am very honored to be a moderator because up until now in my career no one has ever
found me moderate. [laughter] so am very happy that tonight i am on a panel. and it is a great honor to talk about betty friedan "the feminine mystique." also, it is a book that has put the spark under the culture and it's that book that actually change people's lives. it's also come under criticism more recently reflecting a small group of people for not talking about working-class women that have no choice but to work all along and not talking about people's of their sexual preferences who may already find themselves obscure outside of conventional life.
but i want to do a little bit today is talk about the ongoing power of this classic. and i recently talked this to my undergraduate at nyu who do not relevant to the to hesitate to tell me of something as a board or irrelevant. so it's kind of amazing to me that in a class it comes to life and the books sort of spoke to them in a really interesting ways. so i want to talk about the new "the feminine mystique and i want to talk about the old "the feminine mystique" and whether it oppresses us. it's very complicated because we live in a world that has been so transformed by both of this book and the movement that followed
it. most of us in the room were born after the "the feminine mystique" came out. it's hard to imagine those days at all and writer should think about the activity of change to read when my mother was a child, her father said that is when women become lawyers and i thought she grew up to be that. i grew up in a world where my mother removed the darbee duty palace and told me the next morning when i got up there was wrong. [laughter] and then my daughter to -- we were watching the presidential election and she was tiny, she was like five, and she said -- i said, you know, she was a big obama supporter and i said was that it be cool if there was a woman president, and she looked at me very disdainfully and said
of course there has been a woman president. in that short time we went from lawyers to a woman president. there is a lot said for those in which we live in the world in which more women than men get a college education and birth of first time in the majority in the workplace in which women are in the majority of managerial positions. so it's very hard to look us at the other times. more than the abstractly we can't really see and feel like that. i've interviewed -- [inaudible] she told me that when she was in college. i was astonished you know how my
know that life is like that, for the first question i was going to ask the two panelists that were alive to just described for a moment. it's still changing people's lives. it is passed down through the culture. and it was the greatest social movement, and that movement took 100 years, it better not take 100 years. we are only halfway through and have to count on the younger ones to push it along. but i remember reading of the.
she was a gifted singer and quite attractive and a natural businesswoman, and she was eager to work but she is living in the suburban housewife role with two children. she was frustrated. it was either valum or vodka that kept these women going to get and it wasn't until she was in her 50s and they were divorced and she met another man and became a business woman. but she lost, you know, half of her life. i thought i was going to be totally different from her, but certainly i saw that was not the right one.
what happened to me? i married a man i loved but he was going to be starting medical school so i thought this is cool because i have to support us so i have an excuse to having a career. that was my strategy and i was rejected by the other wives of medical students because i was such an oddball. and then we got divorced and having put him through before there was any sense of reckoning things i was a single mom and then my whole trajectory i became a feminist but at that time mr. did is there harold treen because the was the only place you could get a job as a woman writer i had to sneak down the back stairs to go to the
sitting room where women were not allowed to get into the office of the magazine editor and pitch in the story and thereby have developed and then toured that allowed me to move ahead. gloria was little older than i and much more politically sophisticated she had to take a job to get the story but they were starting the new york magazine where he was an editor who had a mother who was a journalist and so he really had no -- he said if they are talented we will move them up and also pay a little less. so, she actually not only bolstered my career but gave the first column written by a woman in politics. a political column for many
years and then when she wanted to start of course she couldn't raise money. who was going to give money to a woman that wanted to publish the magazine about striving women so this is a great magazine idea. let's put it inside so he midwifed this building, this magazine 30 pages with the cover of the outside and is sold out. gloria called because she couldn't find it in california where she was leading a great strike i think. there is no magazine out here and he said it sold out. there was a great exhibition on a collaboration between a male mentor and a female which i think we have sort of lost track of today, only women can help from byman but actually why not, you know, seek out a sponsor that is already had the top.
>> [inaudible] do you remember where you were and how it affected you? >> no, i don't remember where i was. i'm not even sure how it affected me but i do know how everything that came before affected me. and i can only say that there were so few possibilities for women by we were expected to be married by 21 or 22 and expected to raise children, we were not expected to raise money and we were not protected on what would happen if we were to get divorced or someone dhaka as we have no resources for our living and the vulnerability lead us to the hate towards men as if they
were a demagogue and some of them whir media and some of them not. i think that when the presidency team out many of the studies felt we have to remember this change put into words that they couldn't have set themselves articulated and she managed to say it's in the the effect across the country was like an electric shock. i don't think if anything else perhaps martin luther king but i can't think of anything else that has happened in my lifetime that actually together we are going to change the world. we went on a march to washington on peace marches together, groups of women and suddenly we had a voice. we were different.
somebody had to pay attention to us and it was overwhelming which is what made me vigilant. [laughter] i remember going to the museum with all different who made contributions although i am not judging this as a work of art but i can tell you i was there with tdo and her younger sister -- with with katie and her younr sister to the was simpler then it turned out to be. i may not have anticipated what would have happened in a corporate related to job one of the things we didn't figure out completely. but the acceleration of it, the
>> and there was a silence because i could not have been the only one. [laughter] but there was also the possibility women in can write because we don't have subjects. what would my subject me? -- the? the fact we were pushed aside and yes i must have read doris 100 times but the voices that everybody has now at betty friedan liberated into our world i am so grateful i live to see this happen.
[applause] >> given how radically when you think about it in terms of social changes how rapidly change occurred how unbelievably fast it transformed with t. levin the idea of a woman working is so subversive and where we are now with the work place to say they're all kinds of problems but with the opportunity women have that which could be imagined. so let's talk about casting
and the second half not appreciating them. [laughter] this is our reaction now of course. and i think it is related to that because we want all these rights but now we feel we could do everything. this is the opportunity feminism has enabled but you cannot do every single thing at the same time. it cannot be done.
i don't think we have given up the idea at all and we have just said we can do it all at once. >> i'm glad. it is not a fantasy negative have a family. it is wonderful but the vast majority do want to have a family. >> but the of the educated women, 40 percent of educated aspirational women have children by the age of 40 which is pretty dramatic. we had attachment parenting come up in the last decade where women were in courage to be close to their children for the first five years.
and even studies done on women who once they were educated if you drop out and offer have been your job in your thirties over five years to have children, you will not get back on where you left off and you will pay in all kinds of ways, a pension, seniority, winner still choosing to do that. a majority of women are choosing a nonlinear pass. the great encouragement is to stay connected in some way or become a nun to print your to work from home those
who found themselves indefinitely better. those who were making cookies were livid and humiliated from those climbing a professional ladder. it was extremely unpleasant. >> that is what hillary clinton said. i could have stayed home and made cookies and people were appalled. to read a passage from "the
feminine mystique" she wrote out after moving into the workplace, another haggard on her way out of the housewife trapped. >> betty friedan over and over again said he must work she's did not see you have to get the top level job you must be free to choose a life you want. it may work or it may not. even though when i looked at "the feminine mystique" again she was not a very kind to the house why staying at home but politically she saw quickly you cannot dismiss hundreds of thousands of people's life choices. you have to accept them and
have them to feel pride in themselves or they will come kill you. [laughter] >> you don't want to be denigrating. i don't think it is in the interest of reality to be denigrating how difficult child care is. it is working. >> i am very encouraged by the feminist spirit and i think they have it. one of the things i found interesting is say woman quite well-known who is:president of a company, and melanie, started at 22 years old joining the only black owned investment firm in that country and identified right away by the president as a great talent and promise. at 24 he took her to meet
the biggest ceo in the country and he said i am grooming you to be president of the company and she elected to be his grasshopper. she jumped everything to he spoke including writing thank-you notes to the parents for the sleepover than at 28 he made her president. she was completely career oriented through her mid-30s then said it might be nice to have a date or meet men and went out with someone fairly prominent, the filmmaker of "star wars" and now they are engaged and she is 43 and will probably never have children because she did not have time. what she says about young women if they ask about
mentor's if they talk about work life balance they will never move up because they will have to be unidirectional the first tenures. -- tend years. people do not find that appealing but for those who aspire to that, more power to them and i hope we get more but is a narrow portion of the female population that finds that appealing. >> goal made because we have half of a revolution we would have a world that made this possible and we'll not satisfied with half. that will not work. but the failure is not
permanent but it is happening now because we have not changed the whole society we have just changed what women want now we have to change what men want and to for instance universal daycare, we have to make the world complete the different for ourselves. >> one of the things that makes me so sad is we were close. walter mondale bipartisan, comprehensive child care they would have universal preschool and day care. it was nixon who put the veto on that we want to put the government behind the family structure.
that would have changed so much. >> even unpaid maternity leave. >> that would be nice also. >> it has to come from hassling private companies because government cannot do it. we cannot raise our voices marching on washington but go to the company's. >> give women coalesce that could have been. of google the york just expanded 12 weeks maternity leave because of too many women were leaving. that is what happens. once they improved retention rate now it pays off.
>> i want to shift but cheryl sandberg a little bit and the press she is attracting because when we talk about solving these problems, is the wind seo said are stepping forward and she has the astonishing amount of vitriol but on the one level we want more ceos but the people who say that do not like the women that we have but some of the critiques is she tries use some of the things we think about of then backstage and he tries to
talk to women about how to succeed in a high-level business structure. and to a great deal of vigor from women critics and feminists and nays thinking liberals what do you make of that? in trying to think through this? >> is so inconceivable working added job. i cannot sit relate to it. kid anybody relate to that type of corporate job? [laughter] i don't know what it means.
>>. >> 37 you are mixing them up but cheryl has written a book talking about how women should now leave the work place before they leave the workplace and using practical it buys it is not with the betty friedan tone it is nuts and bolts the people attacker because she is obviously a very rich. >> but i think they are valid this is a white
privilege well educated situation and that is true. and to say guess what? i am leaving at 330 but then they have power so if somebody is in a and the the position that is not so bad. >> but it is not reproducible. it does make many women who are struggling to be fair to go through that terrible baby honker women feel at six months with the unpaid maternity leave is over and they have to go back to work because they have to go back to work but they do not want to leave their child. that is a reality for most and they cannot go home at
530 for get it. it is natural to have the books say you are now working hard enough. figure it out. >> i don't think that is the fair representation at all and some would argue those have not read the book. >> bet they're not quite saying we're not working hard enough i think that is the unfair distillation of what she is saying. >> lois gould said in this culture if someone raises their head to take a deep breath and says something something, someone on the shore will throw a rock at the head.
[laughter] it is completely true. there is the hostility of women to women that we have not begun to deal with and if anyone says anything slightly and variants of what is says that you should say we would be ambitiously attacked and it's not a question of right or wrong i am just saying the urge to attacked is very strong and i don't know what we do about it and i certainly don't want to be sentimental to tell each other how good we are. but house social movement.
>> id seeing you are right to that in representing the position hearing how we view her, there were two prominent journalists one was on the front page of the times and she said something, i am paraphrasing saying i feel i running a social movement but the actual'' was very boring like working for a non-profit or something. by taking that first part of the quotes that she has grand visions and aspirations so of course, people pounce on her aunt mock her but that they
would do something so borderline because it is wrong to misquote but let's say she did say that original'' should real clout the guns and shoot her? i feel if they woman has a grand vision that automatically causes anxiety and anger. >> speaking of women, said betty friedan was the piece of work and she warned against the man hating movement but there was no such thing? she was not somebody who said if you are a feminist you are fine with me.
>> you and to store the history a little bit. >> fix me up. [laughter] >> there was a group within the feminist movement that disapproved of the family side so that there got to be a lot of hostility. betty friedan on book tour was greeted at various libraries with bomb threats and they did not come from of bearded pakistan the terrorist but some women's group that were very, very angry at her. so we have to remember i don't know who started the fight if there was a roomful
of women and one man she would go to is the coroner to do talk to that man that was part of her charm. [laughter] but that is what i really think that fortunately it died down. >> for those of us that were there it was not that the what are you doing to the movement? >> there was another part. they had the man haters that were given the name of the blockbusters and the whole movement got the wrapped in the mainstream.
i did not become a feminist and tell the '70s and neither did gloria because i did not want to be a part of that. i was scared the man i loved would think that i was. i did the things that i had a real struggle between i do want to give up the loving and compassionate nurturing sexy me and love being side of myself to be part of the movement. that was a real struggle. >> at don't remember if she said it in the interview but some people read her as saying join the revolution all you have to lose is your man and she said no. your vacuum cleaner. [laughter] it is marketing.
>> a one to think more of how we can identify our own problems that have no name and their own feminine mystique that is hard to recognize how you talk about it? one of my amazing undergraduates said we have that "the feminine mystique" then the other stuff. >> the french feminist wrote the conflict of our new style of parenting and the ways in which we parent with this ominous amounts of energy that could be spent on other pursuits what do you think are the problems that don't have a name? >> it is so funny that comes
from the french woman they knew had of bringing up baby [laughter] i don't think this is the most important problem that i do think it is a misconception that the culture means we are sexually liberated. not the most important thing but it is a myth. >> i did know whole book of interviewing the young women before used delicate the experience leidy think it is your responsibility to look as kinky as possible?
there is a difference between filming a new role and being totally sexually liberating. it is confusing when you talk about talk about sex and foreign that was pretty fractious. >> there were many demonstrations against it and hustler, but i am not clear why this is a feminist issue. i don't understand what you said. >> first of all, i am going from the assumption there was such a thing as
anti-porn feminists who were against it and the sex positive images about freedom and choice and if women want to participate in pornography or sell it it is a choice and i think the anti-porn feminism if you look at the culture now they cannot say it is less fortified and there's a lot of confusion does that mean women have come so far that we the -- lived in the sexual world order is it different extent? it is a confusing question. >> i just wonder if you don't rephrase that as the
purity and the fact that still rages no matter what wet still rages no matter what we do i don't see this as a feminist issue because surely it affects our sons equally. >> but to those he was waiting for, but the sex issue that i imagine every generation struggles with, i would be happy if we were able to solve the question how can a woman get through the work life and family
life without losing her mind? if we solve that problem it would be wonderful then what about thorny human nature? [laughter] that is the under problem. >> again what is amazing is i want to ask one question about betty friedan the marxist she had political ideas but not expressing over the to talk about our country steadied resistance and on some level she was critiquing of life not just
about women that men every ready living in the computer culture to lead the conventional lives and what would she make about our world now? because of we think of her as a marxist what would she make of our idea of a successful family knife? it is not that different from 1955. >> would say it is very different. both men and women spend time preparing them solves educationally and occupation lee postponing there is at least the 10 your jump from when women married at 21 now
it could be 28 or for others it could we mid-40s and the reproductive revolution we are a in an entirely different economic situation and some would say a declining country economically the job opportunities coming into the recession are so truncated that one of the good things i see is women who are aware of this having worked through college if they pay for their own at graduate school may be $200,000 in college loans so wanting to be a social entrepreneur, they cannot do that.
they have to take a job with a high paying position. if they went to law school they will go into corporate law and be bored to tears but they have to do it fiver tin years to get the money to do their passion. there is a big difference. when averell passages in the '70s the most famous business book is what color is your parachute? start off following your passion but who can afford to do that as the 25 year-old finishing college? , it takes a decade to pay off those college loans. also a big advance that the
boomer generation push it forward but the generation of young people today are far more diversified and there are more african americans, indian american hispanics who voted for obama and are hoping to mentor those that were left out and we did not have a lot to do for them there was argument but they were not included a lot but now it is more horizontal and when the young women are starting at 18 or 22 to help young bird
for women to learn code and the skill like the type being of the past because now they know the technology of the future. >> betty friedan would have been ostracized and killed. remember mccarthy. there is no way she could not have been traced to the marxist positions. [applause] >> but if you look gatt her class critique than even though we don't read that. >> wait a minute.
that probably is all true but with the word marxist remember one of the things that happened is we saw what marxism brought in russia and it became a dirty word so what now happens we are in the imperfect world but without ideology to hang onto so i imagine most and not having coffee fighting over ideology baby the things you want to accomplish but to find out what is going on in your world view are not sure you have the answer and that is what has changed. >> i think we should open for questions.
>> that want to make a comment i was just at a panel and the first annual conference on women and fell lot because my mother was a speaker and is president the national association of women lawyers and the issue was growing up she was told she had to be a teacher at the age of 40 graduated from law school and was a major partner of the major law firm and she always felt upset by what she saw with the treatment of women in law firms she started the annual survey across the country and she found
15 percent of women today make equity partner across-the-board and roughly 15% can do this and not firms across the country. that is actually sad and somebody said sometimes the women went to lead to quit -- kline the himalayan and people go on to do great things. but that is not the point* you can climb the himalayas but the question is why are they leaving? what is it about the structure of these law firms that are not allowing them to advance?
and they are forced to leave one way or another. and concrete lee what happens then america's workplaces? >> it is a tactical question bet many people don't work with those to work in the law firm's in particular and , but i wonder that model she has of the educated women should be using their brains.
but for both men and women that is distorted and i think the question if you can have of life for a man or a woman, will you ever see the newborn baby? i think for most is a punishing culture and the role that it occupies. >> about 15 years ago the all girls' school had a career day. and they invited the corporate blurrier / partner and she talked about the wonderful things she did then there was a question period they were between 14
and 18 and the third question was what time you get home for dinner? the other was what if your child is sick and can you spend a whole weekend with your child? not one asked her about the law or her political beliefs or corporate believes. so the pressure on women who are corporate lawyers is enormous because that generation is completing with justification what will lead to? something needs to be done but it is not so simple the can't say let them have success equally because it will not work. >> do talk about betty
friedan in a culture but in 1960 there were just as many women working as at the height of world war ii. what that tells you it is not that women didn't work many had to work and they did. >> i had the privilege of teaching in this book and talking to my students but today there was a backlash with the adn that being a stay at home mom that is
said 30 word and not anything that should be entertained as a goal or aspiration but on the other side to -- and to many students say i by no means am a feminist. so it is there this stigma and what we can do to fix that? >>. >> not to consider yourself a feminist they argued it means the term is no longer useful but your students to believe these things should
reach keep people away your or is this of sign of these excess -- the success? is it a sign of succeeding we don't need that word anymore in the idea is so assimilated into dna? >> i think we could call ourselves women's advocates as a much more neutral term. feminist became a dirty word but we do have to get away from them but you have to have a brand. let's have a brand we're women's advocates, activists , we still want to help women
understand how to succeed in their lives. we need to do that we need to help. >> i wish i knew. >> me to. >> a very glorious steinem thing but it her daughter did not call herself a feminist and she said it does she know who she is? and i do think if your daughter thinks there has been a woman president the doesn't mean she does not know gloria steinem but there is more than one way to look at that. >> we have one last
question. >> two points advocating to change the values and the ethics not those to penetrate the glass ceiling but change the values of the workplace so men and women could have a call and that has not come up i know fit was is in "the feminine mystique" but it was in future books growing up and now wind if they want to have a call it is by designing their own solution and it could be that lateral tract and she advocated we shouldn't have to do that but the other is saying that betty friedan was not a marxist and that is not a
proven fact. it is very upset to hear it given as fact. >> but she had a profound sense of social justice that was informed by many things including her up -- and upbringing and where she grew up and many, many things. to grow up steadying intellectuals she certainly played with the leftist ideas anybody who was intelligent at that time may be a limousine communist? >> and it certainly had a residence but as strongly developed class conscious in a more rigorous way maybe
that is a better way to talk about it. >> one more question. >> this is more of a comment based on identifying as a feminist but i feel a passage do with what ariel levy writes in the book but there is a hesitation to stand up for yourself because you don't want to be that woman. especially in the class you read the feminine mystique i think a refusal to identify shows there is the extreme backlash that still exist. to say we are beyond the word feminism is maybe
and we are an american family. [cheers and applause] today we stand here for american households like ours there asking to be treated with the same rights and benefits as every of their family. we're hard-working, loving, all-am erican, we volunteer in our community, business owners, employers, a taxpayers, yet we are also voters. we have been together for over 11 years and in 2009 got married in the great state of vermont. regrettably, our marriage is not recognized in our home state of florida providing many potential obstacles personally come emotionally emotionally, and financially for our family.
we simply cannot afford to let marriage inequality continue. we're not asking for anything more than our neighbors, friends, family neighbors, friends, family, but certainly expect no less [cheers and applause] >> for those of you listening to a questioning why marriage equality is necessary, if your family was not afforded 1100 rights as neighbors and co-workers would do not be here today? it is about family justice and love. because of the incredible organizations like a human rights campaign, glad and a broad coalition of others the tide has changed. fair minded americans from every faith, color and background have come to embrace marriage equality. in the end we're not asking
for more than any other american family. just as all other married couples to protect ourselves, our children who share our lives and loves. over the next several months as the great debate continues in the supreme court and public square, please remember our family when you think of marriage equality. these decisions made have been incredible impact to families like ours in so many others around this great nation. please stand with our american family and stand on the right side of history. thank you. [cheers and applause]
with. >> thank you. thank-you note to be here today and last semester here at yale i had the privilege to teach a course of intellectual legacy of william f. buckley, jr. and i dedicated a couple of weeks to build a booker the anti-communist and as a philosophical position. bill buckley once told me late in his life his most important'' may have been odyssey of a friend that he uncharacteristically barely says or writes anything but
in which he creates a literary and philosophical interview with whittaker chambers. we see in chambers again bare his soul this time directly to a young admirer, friend, colleague. with these parts of the books i was struck mostly by the deep intensity and raw humanity that flows out of so many pages. of man who tries to account to himself or to the world how he makes his choices where he blundered also although there is no going back, how doing the right thing can mean everything and not just for his own soul but for a generation. as a dramatic and emotional
man, very much so and he has moved bill profoundly. as my students know bill buckley had many influences but chambers ranks as the most unexpected and mysterious and i applaud this work "witness" for the second annual buckley program conference. to help us get started today we have produced three distinguished gentleman who know much about the subject. lee edwards is a distinguished fellow and long dash of conservative thought at the heritage foundation. dr. edwards has enjoyed a career of leading historians of american conservatism ranging from biographies of reagan to william f.
buckley. dr. edwards is the founding director of the institute of political journalism at georgetown and is a fellow of the at the jfk school of government at harvard. john lewis gaddis is one of the leading historians of the cold war. the professor won the pulitzer prize for his book and has influenced the work of cold war historians over the world to play a major role in uncovering the role of leadership personalities with cold war policies. his narrative work of the cold war could be seen in the cnn television series cold war. finally, m. stanton evans a graduate of yale class
of, can you help me? 1955, one of the leading members of the conservative movement in the united states his book blacklisted by history the untold story of joe mccarthy is an account during the cold war of the recipients of honorary doctorates in the john marshall law school and was in the accuracy in media award for excellence in journalism. please join me to welcome our panel. [applause] >> it is such a pleasure and
an honor to be here. once again i was flattered to be asked to participate last year and now i am back again today. i see some good friends including senator jim buckley. [applause] let us begin with a paradox. whittaker chambers was a soviet spy who became the bill buckley's words the most part -- important defector from communism but he noticed the seductive attractions of communism idgan august 1948 when he